Only Cowgirls Get the News

Hey, David Gregory!
I'm up here!

So as everyone knows, Ron Paul came in a close second in the meaningless Iowa Republican Party fund raising exercise in Ames (Motto: "Bring us deep fried bar-b-q Barabbas!"), losing to Michele Bachmann by a mere 152 votes.

As a result, Bachmann got a Full Ginsburg, and Paul was sent back to Ugly Kid Camp.

Yesterday I listened to Republico's Politico's Jim VandeHei explain that Bachmann is just "more interesting" that Ron Paul isn't "electable" that as "an editor" you have to take things like that into consideration.

Which has long been people like VandeHei's alibi for trafficking in rumor, trivia and shiny-shiny softcore political for a long time.

Bachmann (and Palin) get bandwidth on our nation's political talk shows far, far beyond anything their their competence and ideas remotely merit because they're loco and hot, whereas poor Ron Paul is merely loco.

And only 70% loco at that; 30% of what he says makes perfect sense, which is why he is conspicuously ignored by our Imperial Media. Like Howard Dean in 2004, some of what Ron Paul talks about scares the Hell out of the Mighty Princes of the Power of the Air, whereas Bachmann (and Palin) are pure ratings Viagra.

From the Chicago Tribune:

Ron Paul's Iowa victory

Steve Chapman
August 15, 2011

Everyone with the slightest interest in politics knows that the winner of Iowa's Republican straw poll was Michele Bachmann. But you have to have been paying close attention to realize that the runner-up was not Tim Pawlenty, Rick Perry, or Mitt Romney. It was Ron Paul.

Paul gets ignored because everyone assumes -- accurately -- that he can't win the nomination, or even make a decent run at it. In 2008, he got only a handful of delegates, despite a vocal core of fervent followers. He came in fourth in the Iowa caucuses. Whatever the top-tier contenders worry about, it's not Ron Paul.
...

Perry and Romney didn't even bother to play this stupid game this time around because the word had already gone forth from the High Hats who run the world that, however a tiny mosh pit of Iowa wingnuts may "vote", they are The Front Runners.

What VandeHei, and Gregory and all the rest were really saying is that kabuki plebiscites are all well and good for getting B-roll of candidates wearing funny hats and fellating corn dogs, but they decide where the spotlight lands, and so they decide who the front runners will be based on the only morality they comprehend.

Money.

"Front Runner" on the Right means you have jillionaires -- both corporeal and corporate (which, as Nominee-Who-Parts-His-Hair-On-The-Left reminds us, are really the same thing) -- lining up to fund them in their quest to liquidate the remains ot the United States Federal Gummint and sell off its lands and people to our new owners at remaindered prices; a naked, cash-and-carry brand of oligarchy with which Nominee-Who-Parts-His-Hair-On-The-Right is already very, very comfortable.

Media Matters explains how things work at the Mainstream Media Meat Market:

[Politico's Jim VandeHei and Jonathan Martin] contend that the saturation coverage of someone so unpopular is simply a result of the fact that stories about her attract eyeballs. They do concede that they're part of the problem -- but they have no plans to stop:

We know we're part of the problem - and we'll surely continue to run stories about Palin. But, we're looking at your top newspaper editors and network executives, listen to your grumbling political reporters when they try to tell you why going over board on the Hockey Mom beat isn't wise. Palin is no doubt a phenomenon - she's going to draw monster crowds and be an in-demand fundraiser for GOP candidates this fall. And she may overcome her weaknesses to make a run for the White House. But to cover her as the chief alternative to Obama and the presumptive frontrunner for the GOP nomination in 2012 borders on dishonest.

Yes, she's good copy and yes she's good for business. But that doesn't mean she should be treated like a president-in-waiting.

Now, when Jim VandeHei begs "top newspaper editors" to "listen to our grumbling political reporters" when they say Palin doesn't merit such attention, it's important to keep in mind that Jim VandeHei is no mere beat reporter: He is Politico's executive editor. Who is forcing Politico reporters to cover Palin, if not Jim VandeHei himself?

And VandeHei and Martin downplay a screamingly obvious point: The problem isn't just that media outlets like Politico give Palin too much attention, it's that the coverage they give her too rarely notes her massive shortcomings, including the poor poll numbers VandeHei and Martin lay out. It's one thing to constantly cover someone who doesn't merit the attention; it's something else altogether to dishonestly constantly cover someone who doesn't merit the attention, portraying her as a popular phenomenon when she is wildly unpopular, and glossing over her stunning lack of honesty.
...

The seats of our Imperial power are protected by callow fratboy sentinels who are so secure in their well-paid sinecures that they will actually explain to you exactly how they are fucking you over even as they guard the media's velvet ropes to make sure contrary opinions are never, ever allowed into The Club.